Page 29 - Education in a Digital World

16 Developing a Global Perspective

interaction. These accounts are often unashamedly celebratory and optimistic –
focusing on the benefits associated with global economic liberalisation, not least the
growth of ‘borderless’ forms of ‘denationalised’ economic exchange.
There are, of course, many counter-arguments that can be levelled against
the globalist position – not least that it tends to result in over-generalised and over-
stated analyses. In particular, globalist accounts could be said to transfer unrealistic
assumptions from the rich North onto other countries and contexts that are often dif-
ferent in terms of their economic, social or political circumstances. This is particularly
the case with the globalist tendency to perceive the displacement of the nation state
as a significant form of governance. Counter to this assumption, therefore, is the
opposing perspective that the nation state is in fact more significant than ever in
these contemporary globalised times. The ‘sceptical’ (or ‘traditionalist’) position to
globalisation therefore contends that while the capacities of the nation state may
have altered, they have certainly not disappeared. Sceptic commentators argue that
what are celebrated as new forms of globalisation are in fact continuations of long-
established patterns of internationalisation. While there may well be intensified
relations between states and international institutions, it can be argued that nation-
states and national governments remain the primary architects of their determination.
Sceptic commentators point, for example, to a greater polarisation between sets of
wealthy ‘developed’ and less-wealthy ‘developing’ countries, arguing that global shifts
of power to less wealthy nations are exaggerated. Instead, all of the major changes
over the last three decades or so can be said to have led primarily to the entrenchment
of power within “the already advanced countries” (Hirst et al. 2009, p.3).
One of the key themes within the sceptical position on globalisation is the continued
significance of the nation state in managing the deepening ‘crisis’ tendencies of
capitalism. This trend was certainly evident in the response of different nation states
to the post-9/11 ‘war on terror’ and subsequent heightened political significance of
countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Similar arguments for the continued
significance of the nation state are also evident in the responses of different nations
to the global financial crises since the late 2000s and 2010s. As the 2010s progressed,
so too did a number of other examples of national difference – not least the growth
of populist left-wing national governments in Latin America, the resurgence of
Russian independence from global forces and markets (most visibly in terms of its
control of energy supplies), and the growth in Chinese and Indian reformations of
the market economic model. All these examples point towards nationally framed
and nationally fractious political situations in contrast to the globalist portrayal of a
post-national world arena. Thus as Hirst et al. (2009, p.15) contend, “the burden of
evidence still remains in favour of an inter-national economy (albeit now heavily
overlaid by supranational regionalisation)” with national-level policies and national-
level actors remaining sovereign. At best, then, any sense of ‘global’ transformation
could be said to describe more accurately the converging nature of European, East
Asian and North American interests, as opposed to the interests of all nations. In this
sense, much of what is referred to as taking place on a ‘global’ level refers more